Hi guys it's your friendly neighborhood Pooncrew.

I for one long for the days of open tournaments that didn't require coins, I hate having to invite every one of my friends individually. I don't understand why Fizzdog thought this system was better than addressing some easy to fix issues the previous tournament system had.

1. Player limits: I was just invited to a tournament with 730 players. Seriously? Even if by some miracle the game starts, it is going to take years to finish. Max amount of players a tournament should have is 128. No real need for any more than that.

2. Have tournaments deleted after 2 weeks of not filling up: This will reduce clutter and ensure that tournaments with crappy settings won't be created as often.

3. Have tournament limits: Maybe allow only 50 open tournaments at a time? That might be too much but it's just a starting off point

Now if Fizzdog is gonna keep the private system he has now we need to have an invite all button, it's a chore to have to individually invite all my friends.

Have a great day and Poon On.

Hmm, I definitely agree that the open tournament system was better than the one we have now, but I'll have to disagree with some of the points you made in order to fix the old system:

1. This should be up to the people creating the tournaments, since finding a limit that everyone agrees with might be really hard. Tournaments with 256 or even 512 people are not impossible to fill, although they probably won't fill unless there's a good reason to join, like free coins, or the tournament being part of a bigger event. If people want to join a really big tournament, that should be up to them, despite the fact that it might take ages for the tournament to end. If you don't want to join a large tournament because of the expected time it will take to finish, don't. This might dissuade people from creating them in the future.

2. I will have to disagree here as well. Not that I don't think tournaments should be deleted if they don't fill, that is a good suggestion, but I think that rather than having the tournaments be deleted after two weeks without filling, they should be deleted two weeks (or some other amount of time, perhaps a bit larger) after the last person joined. That way, tournaments will not be deleted if they are slowly but surely filling up, but tournaments with no one interested will be deleted (I do realize that people could just rejoin the tournament/join with an alt and take the alt out again, but I do think measures could be made to avoid this, like only counting the time since the last new player joined, and only counting the time since the last new player still actually participating in the tournament joined).

Idk marcus ive never really seen those giant tourneys fill up. I just think if it's more streamlined it will get more play.

As for youe second suggestion its not bad, but you can cheat with it like you said.

Deleting would be bad, it's confusing when you join something and it just dissappears. I would say that mechanism from open game could be used - so after certain amount of time open tourney is changed to private.

I also have a couple features I'd like to see, but mine are specific to round robins.

1. As I've stated previously, 20 teams is too low for a max limit. I wish I could make a 1v1 RR with my whole clan (40 people) but currently we can't. I think the limit should be 100.

2. I wish there was a way to make round robins where you could play each team more than once. We have an internal promotion/relegation league and I'd love to have each set of 2 players face off twice for that.

Fizz Dog is Fizzer's nickname

It's Fizzer not Fizzdog,also Fizzdog is not Fizzer's nickname

Preface: Agree
1. Agree.
2. Agree.
3. Agree, but it should be more like 10, 50 tournaments are never going cycle and fill.

If the number of tournaments needs to be limited, it needs to be scalable, in direct proportion to the number of active users on this site. As the user base grows, it will grow to accommodate more demand. As the user base declines, it will still be able to serve as a worthwhile limitation.

The better question is whether or not this is actually necessary though.

I Would Not Take Yuan Shao Opinion Seriously Because He Is A Jackass

Benjamin 10 seems too low to me. I feel like that would end up with a situation where a few people make massive tournaments that take a long time to fill, then nobody would be able to make an open tournament. A number like 50 would make it less likely that you'd have to wait to make an open tournament

I'm sure there is a number between 10 and 50 that makes more sense

John Jacob is a jackass that he invited me and RandyRamPlaysiPadPro in a Free for All game with the guys I mentioned

Also I agree with Yuan Shao that it's Fizzer not Fizzdog

If anyone look at his profile then it's Fizzer

I think Poon Squad was also a jackass that Pooncrew and one of his clanmate invited me in a tournament even the Island of Lost Poon template,Pooncrew used me for no reason at all

Also Yuan Shao is not playing with us,John Jacob

Fizzer is not a dog, for the people that don't understand, I suggest that they read my high level explanation of the word "dog".

A dog is a domesticated carnivorous mammal probably descended from the wolf, with a barking or howling voice, an acute sense of smell, and non-retractile claws.

So I hope that "QueefBalls" now understands that Fizzer is not a dog. For further information, I suggest you read a dictionary.

Case closed, typed by a polyglot person.

Dear god please shut up, we all know perfectly well that Fizzer isn't a dog
The internet is not a place for you

I just think that tourneys that take too long to finish are bad because a lot of the players go inactive

Pinhead? How eloquent and strategic. I guess there's no way I can argue with that, right?

Avoiding those posts won't be very difficult, considering that you've posted literally nothing of any strategic or tactical value on these forums, ever.